Yoma 6b (ו:) — the Talmud in English

Rather, is it not concerning the

time of

their immersion

that the tanna informs us that one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman must immerse during the day, like one impure due to contact with a corpse?

And we answer:

No.

Rather,

always

interpret the beraita as saying that they are alike only

with regard to their impurity:

And

the latter clause was necessary for him

for the tanna to inform us of this, and therefore he taught this matter in the first clause:

As we learned in the latter clause of the beraita:

Rather, he is more stringent than him

\[than one impure due to contact with a corpse\], in that

one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman

imparts impurity to a bed or seat,

even if he did not touch them with his body. Whereas one impure due to contact with a corpse imparts impurity only through contact.

Nevertheless, he differs from the other sources of impurity that impart impurity to a bed or seat, as they impart a severe impurity to their bed or seat, rendering them a primary source of impurity, so that they can impart impurity even to a person or vessels, whereas one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman imparts impurity to his bed or seat only

with a lesser impurity,

as the bed becomes only a ראשון לטומאה—to a first-degree source of impurity—

to impart impurity to food and liquids

alone.

And furthermore, we raise an objection:

Come and hear

from this

as Rabbi Hiyya taught: One with a flux, a woman with a flux, a leper, a leprous woman, one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman, and one impure due to contact with a corpse—

their immersion is during the day

of the seventh day;

a menstruating woman and a woman after childbirth immerse at night.

And we conclude:

Tiyuvta

against Rav Shimi of Nehardea!

And we raise another objection:

And while you are separating him from

his wife, so that he not become impure through her with

the impurity of his household,

with the impurity of one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman—

separate him

during those seven days preceding Yom Kippur also

from

other people, because perhaps one of them will die while with him, and the priest will become impure with

the impurity imparted by a corpse,

which is also an impurity lasting seven days, and consequently the High Priest will be impure on Yom Kippur.

Rav Tahlifa, father of Rav Huna, said in the name of Rava:

There is a major difference between the impurity of one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman and impurity imparted by a corpse with regard to the service on Yom Kippur.

For the offerings of Yom Kippur are communal offerings, and even the offerings of the High Priest, which are individual offerings, nevertheless have a fixed time and are considered like communal offerings with regard to impurity.

And the Sages expounded that communal offerings override impurity, and they are brought even if the priests are impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. However, this rule—that a communal offering overrides impurity—applies only to impurity imparted by a corpse, and not to the impurity of a menstruating woman or other impurities that emerge from his body.

Therefore, even if the High Priest becomes impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, he is not disqualified from performing the service on Yom Kippur. He is disqualified from performing the service only if he becomes impure through intercourse with a menstruating woman.

Nevertheless, one can still raise an objection: it is preferable initially to avoid performing the service in a state of impurity, and therefore it would have been appropriate to separate him so that he would not have to rely on this overriding of impurity.

And we answer this:

This is to say: impurity imparted by a corpse,

which is overridden for the sake of communal offerings, is not merely in the category of “overriding” alone [for then it would initially have been appropriate to make an effort to perform it in purity].

Rather,

it is entirely permitted

within

the community,

and there is no need whatsoever to make an effort to perform it in purity. Therefore, we need not separate him so that he will not become impure.

Ravina said:

One cannot prove from here that the overriding of impurity in the case of communal offerings is a full-fledged permission. For

even if you say that impurity imparted by a corpse is merely overridden

with difficulty

in the case of communal offerings,

and whatever can be done in purity we do, nevertheless there is no need to separate him before Yom Kippur because of this concern; only because of the possibility of the impurity of a menstruating woman is it appropriate to separate him.

Because

impurity imparted by a corpse is uncommon,

whereas only

the impurity of his household is common,

to the extent that we should be concerned about it and separate him as a precaution.

It was stated: Impurity imparted by a corpse,

Rav Naḥman said: It is permitted in the case of communal offerings.

Rav Sheshet said: It is overridden in the case of communal offerings.

There are two formulations as to the manner in which Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet disagreed over whether the permission is absolute or whether impurity is overridden only with difficulty.

According to the first formulation, Rav Naḥman concedes

that where there are impure and pure priests in that beit av

who are scheduled to serve on that day,

everyone agrees

that since it is easy to perform the offering in purity, and there is no need to bring pure priests from another beit av, the impurity is not overridden. Rather, we say:

the pure priests serve,

and

the impure priests do not serve.

They disagree

with regard to

seeking out

[to search]

and bringing pure priests from another beit av.

Rav Naḥman said:

Service in impurity is

a full permission

and

is permitted in the case of communal offerings,

and we are not required to trouble ourselves to perform it in purity.

And

therefore,

we do not seek out

pure priests from another beit av.

For this was the order of the service in the Temple: the priests were divided into twenty-four watches, and each watch served during a different week, from Shabbat to Shabbat.

The watch itself was divided into batei avot, and each day a different beit av served.

Thus, as an initial matter, a priest from the beit av assigned to another day was not supposed to serve on the day assigned to this beit av.

And for this reason, if impurity occurred in this beit av, we do not seek out other pure priests.

And Rav Sheshet said:

Service in impurity imparted by a corpse is not a full-fledged permission, and although the impurity is overridden, it is overridden only with difficulty;

it is overridden in the case of communal offerings.

It is appropriate to make an effort so that the service will be performed in purity,

and

therefore

we seek out

even pure priests from another beit av.

There are those who say:

Even where there are pure and impure priests in that beit av,

who are scheduled to serve on that day, nevertheless

Rav Naḥman disagreed

with Rav Sheshet

and said

that

the impure priests also serve,

the

impure priests.